§ COLONEL BARNEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he 1240 would approve of the principle of stopping obstruction by silencing a Member who had been twice pronounced by a three to one majority of the House, as guilty of obstruction, for one month for a first offence, and for the Session for a second offence, at the same time permitting him to vote?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am bound to say that at the present moment I am really reluctant to advert to the subject of Obstruction. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House apply themselves to the expeditious discharge of Public Business in such a way that, although I believe there was such a thing as Obstruction some time ago, I do not wish to believe in its survival. It seems to me like an evil dream, which I should rather be glad to dismiss. But this I may say. I think the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he asked the House to make Regulations on the subject of Obstruction, confined himself, and wisely, to asking for the provision of very moderate restrictions and penalties indeed. Probably, if this habit were growing upon us and beginning to show signs of becoming inveterate, it would be right to give greater stringency to the Regulations.